Respondent name
Paul Bennett
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
Whole Plan
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Plan has been dictated by wishes of developers rather than enhancing image of town by building on infrastructure strengths and development of brownfield land. Concern for increased pollution and reduced air quality as a result. Greenbelt development will result in a loss of biodiversity.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

No exceptional circumstances to justify Green Belt development in South Warrington. Questions what has changed since Green Belt boundaries were only confirmed 7 years ago. Green Belt development would change landscape and character of South Warrington area. 2007 Landscape Character Assessment ignored by WBC.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD5
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Development of prime Green Belt site previously opposed by WBC - questions what has changed.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD3
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Welcomes development of brownfield land such as Fiddlers Ferry site.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
DEV1
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Plan proposes unprecidented levels of growth and levels of delivery incompatible with anything previously achieved.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
Spatial Strategy
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

The Plan provides no justification as to why areas identified for housing and employment are better than other sites in the area.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD6
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Identification and assessment of site is not evidenced and its comparative evaluation against other potential areas is not proven or justified. Site is not close to railway network. Existing distribution units at Omega are not fully utilised - existing vacant commercial propoerty can accommodate this proposed development. The Plan is driven by economic needs of existing operators and landowners and not by sound planning. Development on Greenbelt site would destroy setting and character of the area. Type of employment proposed by Six56 / Stobbarts has not been fully described so it is not clear what economic benefit they would bring to Warrington - many f existing workforce commute from outside the area, thus increasing congestion and pollution. Site is not close to where Warrington's employment needs are and will not attract the number nor the high-quality jobs suggested in plan. Existing issues with congestion in the area will be amplified by proposed development.

Respondent Type
Resident
Evidence Base

LTP4

Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Summary of comments

Transport plan lacks detail demonstrating how scale of development in SEWUE can e serviced. Infrastructure in area is already at capactity and further development will result in serious pressure on roads, public transport and social infrastructure.